Tails

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2017-12-07 12:57:23

• Assignee changed from anonym to intrigeri
• Target version changed from Tails_3.5 to Tails_3.6

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2017-12-10 08:39:41

• blocks Feature #13245: Core work 2018Q1: Foundations Team added

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2017-12-10 15:02:33

• Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
• % Done changed from 0 to 10
• Feature Branch set to feature/14521-improve-UX-when-GDM-fails-to-start

I have something that works on a non-Tails Debian Stretch VM, let’s see how it goes in Tails.

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2017-12-11 10:34:18

• Assignee changed from intrigeri to anonym
• % Done changed from 10 to 50
• QA Check set to Ready for QA

I now have something that works reliably for me in Tails (VM with Cirrus/QXL/virtio graphics, MacBook Pro 8,1 13-inch, ThinkPad X200). One part of the implementation (wrapping gdm-x-session) is somewhat ugly but everything else is “not exactly basic but not super advanced either” systemd stuff. You can test this by adding autotest_broken_Xorg on the kernel command line.

Do you think it’s worth adding an automated test for thi new behaviour? It should be super easy: just boot from DVD, pass the aforementioned boot option, wait a while until the expected message appears on the screen. I doubt this should be a blocker for merging, but if you want to quickly add it to the feature branch before merging, be my guest :)

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2018-01-01 17:09:52

• Assignee changed from anonym to bertagaz

#7 Updated by intrigeri 2018-01-02 10:17:23

• blocked by Bug #15132: devel branch FTBFS since aufs-dkms 4.14 is in sid added

#8 Updated by bertagaz 2018-01-31 12:20:47

• Assignee changed from bertagaz to sajolida
• % Done changed from 50 to 60

Manual test confirms it works, and code looks good enough.

Now I’m wondering about the UX and resolution path for users ending with this screen. In part because we also have a list of badly supported video cards in the know issues that it wouls be worth for the users to compare with. Maybe we could add a 4th link in the ‘Tails does not start’ section linking to this video card list?

I see you had basically no answers on tails-ux and the ticket description states that sajolida was ready to give a hand on this. So I’m re-assigning to him in case he have time to review the UX part. If he does not, I’ll simply merge this branch, as I agree it’s still better than the current state. So please sajolida, just tell me. :)

I won’t have time to write automated tests for this feature, but I think it may be worth having one so I’ll open a low prio ticket, but will not block on it to merge this branch.

#9 Updated by intrigeri 2018-02-08 06:25:18

• blocked by Bug #15270: devel branch FTBFS since torbrowser-launcher 0.2.9 entered sid added

#10 Updated by intrigeri 2018-02-08 06:27:50

• Assignee changed from sajolida to intrigeri
• QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

bertagaz wrote:
> Now I’m wondering about the UX and resolution path for users ending with this screen. In part because we also have a list of badly supported video cards in the know issues that it wouls be worth for the users to compare with. Maybe we could add a 4th link in the ‘Tails does not start’ section linking to this video card list?

Let’s please avoid forking the UX design discussion => feel free to participate in the existing discussion on the tails-ux@ mailing list.

> I see you had basically no answers on tails-ux and the ticket description states that sajolida was ready to give a hand on this. So I’m re-assigning to him in case he have time to review the UX part.

sajolida answered on the tails-ux@ list last week so I’ll come back to this (hopefully “simply” to implement his proposal).

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2018-02-08 07:35:34

• Assignee changed from intrigeri to bertagaz
• QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

I’ve raised my concerns with sajolida’s proposal on the corresponding thread but regardless: I’ve implemented it, please review’n’merge on the grounds that it’s much better than we currently have.

#12 Updated by intrigeri 2018-02-18 06:59:34

• Assignee changed from bertagaz to intrigeri
• QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

sajolida made a new proposal.

#13 Updated by intrigeri 2018-02-18 12:01:23

• Assignee changed from intrigeri to bertagaz
• QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

#14 Updated by bertagaz 2018-02-20 09:52:38

• Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
• Assignee deleted (bertagaz)
• % Done changed from 60 to 100
• QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

intrigeri wrote:
> I’ve raised my concerns with sajolida’s proposal on the corresponding thread but regardless: I’ve implemented it, please review’n’merge on the grounds that it’s much better than we currently have.

Great, l ooks good, I’ve merged it for 3.6.

#15 Updated by bertagaz 2018-03-14 11:09:25

• Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved